Re: FSM corruption and standby servers

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I would have thought that the referenced page is clear enough about
>> needing to check the standbys; do you think it isn't?

> ​I can ​see how the following is a bit loose for someone not super-familiar
> with WAL.

Yeah.  On the other hand, I don't want people who aren't running
replication to stop reading as soon as they see something about standby
servers.  I tweaked the existing wording a bit to emphasize that standbys
can be corrupt even with a valid master; hopefully that's enough.

            regards, tom lane